some reflections on contemporary canadian catholic education

Interchange Vol. 34/4, 363-381, 2003.©Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Some Reflections On ContemporaryCanadian Catholic Education

MARIO O. D’SOUZAUniversity of St. Michael’s College

ABSTRACT: Increasingly, Canadian Catholic education isidentified according to theological and denominationaldistinctiveness. In the past, however, Catholic education wasgrounded upon an unambiguous philosophy of education, onethat recognized education and teaching as primarilyphilosophical activities. Today, there is a noticeable absence ofan identifiable Catholic philosophy of education, an absencethat is particularly conspicuous in the pluralist and multi-faithmakeup of Canada. In such a context, relying upon theologicaldistinctiveness is insufficient. What is unique about Catholiceducation? What are some of the reasons that have led to theabandoning of a distinctively Catholic philosophy of education?Can such an education defend itself without identifying itsunique philosophical and pedagogical principles? These, amongothers, are some of questions and issues of this paper.

KEYWORDS: Intellectual knowledge, rational knowledge,philosophical distinctiveness, universal principles, pluralism,multiculturalism, catholic education, unit of knowledge,philosophy of education, epistemological distinctiveness.

IntroductionThe philosophical principles of Catholic education are not narrowlyconfessional; they are broadly pedagogical and therefore they can beof wide interest to a multicultural and pluralist country like Canada.I am interested in those wider philosophical principles of knowledgeand learning that transform education into a process of liberation,where mastery over the things learned – the acquisition ofknowledge – is one of the essential feature in the process of growinginto one’s humanity. The philosophical distinctiveness of Catholiceducation should be of interest to all Canadians who are eager to

364 MARIO O. D’SOUZA

protect public education. Consequently, I apologize for anyinadvertent confessional demagoguery. I am truly committed to adiscussion that honours Canada’s mosaic of citizens. I believe thatone of the features that holds this mosaic together is intellectual andrational knowledge, and I believe that the philosophicaldistinctiveness of Catholic education can contribute to holding thismosaic together. In light of these convictions, identifying thisdistinctiveness becomes all the more critical.

It seems that in the last 40 years or so Catholic schools anduniversities appear to have lost that certain internationalphilosophical flavour or unity that marked such a system, acharacteristic that was identifiable in the early and middle parts ofthe 20th century. Second, that these educational institutions havesupplemented this loss by turning to theology to define and describeits distinctiveness (O’Brien, 1994, p. 48). This philosophical loss hasdeprived Catholic education of an indispensable means of identifyingitself, a loss particularly noticeable in a diverse country like Canada.My reflection on the state of Canadian Catholic education, therefore,is concerned with the pedagogical and philosophical distinctivenessof such a system. In its present makeup Canadian public Catholic primary andsecondary education (henceforth, Canadian Catholic education) is asvaried and distinct as the provincial landscapes that make up thefederation. Canadian education is under provincial jurisdiction andthe provinces of Canada have come to their historical educationalarrangements along different paths. In some provinces there are alsoCanadian public Catholic educational systems that have evolvedaccording to provincial educational practices. In short, the status ofCanadian Catholic education usually imitates the very evolution ofCanada as a nation and as a federation.

A quick glance from the Canadian West Coast to the East showsCatholic schools in British Columbia as categorized underIndependent Schools and receive up to 50% of funding. Catholicschools in Alberta enjoy full funding as do Catholic schools inSaskatchewan. There are a few Catholic Schools in the North WestTerritories that come under the jurisdiction of Alberta Catholicschools. These schools also enjoy some federal assistance offered tothe Territories but prohibited to the Provinces. Manitoba is muchlike British Columbia where funding is up to 50%. Catholic schoolsin Ontario enjoy equivalent status with funding up to Grade 13.Recently, following a constitutional amendment in Quebec, schools

REFLECTIONS ON CANADIAN CATHOLIC EDUCATION 365

in that province are now distinguished according to linguistic lines,with confessional schools within either linguistic system. The threeMaritime Provinces: Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, andNova Scotia have no Catholic schools, though some schools may bepredominantly Catholic and may have a religious education program.Finally, Newfoundland, which until recently enjoyed adenominationally controlled educational system, now has a secularadministration with generic religious education programs. Schoolsin this province may still carry a Catholic name, but they are nolonger designated as Catholic. For a general historical discussion,though one that was written prior to some of the more recentprovincial changes, see Matthews, 1977.

I shall proceed in the following manner. First, I will make somegeneral observations and reflections about contemporary CanadianCatholic education. Second, I will offer a brief reflection upon someof the literature on Canadian Catholic education. And third, I shalloffer some pedagogical and philosophical reflections.

Some Reflections On Contemporary CanadianCatholic Education

In general, Catholic education has been governed by certainuniversal principles. Catholic educational documents seem to expectthat these principles be applied according to concrete historicaldevelopments and in keeping with the local and national culture andthe socio-economic climate (The Congregation for Catholic Education,1988, p. 5). The age-old philosophical relationship of the universal tothe particular is recognized by these documents, and the adherentsof Catholic education are called upon to implement such aneducation from the universal to the particular (1988, p. 52). Catholiceducators are expected to guard against an ambiguous or impreciseapplication of the universal principles of Catholic education resultingin a loss of the link between local application and those universalprinciples. Canadian Catholic education is secured in theConstitution of Canada – in the British North America Act. This isa historical feature of this educational system. It is also based uponthe particularity of some provincial educational policies andarrangements. Canadian Catholic education is further particularizedthrough the autonomy of local school boards and their trustees. TheCanadian Catholic bishops have some influence in the overallspiritual education of such schools, but federal laws, provincial


jurisdiction, and the independence of Catholic school boards limitthis influence. What, therefore, one may ask, are the universalfeatures of a Canadian Catholic education? Indeed, given thehistorical and cultural particularities of Canada in the year 2004, arethere identifiable universal principles that have been applied to theparticularity of Canadian Catholic education?

Constitutions are human documents, and through amendmentsthey evolve and change. One does not require constitutionalspecialization in order to predict that the changing demographicsand the multicultural and pluralist nature of the Canadianfederation will contribute to the evolution of the Canadianconstitution. Already the United Nations has been critical of fundingpolicies of the Government of Ontario to Catholic schools, callingupon the government of that province to redress this situation byoffering funding to other denominational schools as well. Thedecision of the Government of Ontario not to offer funding to otherdenominations, because it is not so stipulated in the Constitution,should not be interpreted as a victory for Catholic education; in fact,quite the reverse (Ontario Ministry of Education, 1999). Othergroups and communities will and have become more vocal on thismatter (Landy, 2000). Catholic educational documents recognize therights of other denominations to establish their own school systems(The Congregation for Catholic Education, 1977, pp. 6-7). What isthe Canadian Catholic response to a possible plurality of schoolsystems? How, for example, does such a school system respond to thepossible fragmentation of society and the isolation of religious andethnic communities that could result from a plurality of religiouslydistinct school systems? Education is meant to provide a sense ofcohesion and unity for its citizenry, all the more so in a diversecountry like Canada. In that case and in the face of a possibleplurality of religiously distinct school systems, what shall be thesticking point of Canadian political and civic unity in the light ofsuch potentially diverse school systems?

The identity of Canadian Catholic education is determined andformulated by provincial educational policies, adequately proved bythe recent decisions in Quebec and Newfoundland. Indeed, theeducational independence of the provinces reflects Canada’s federalconstitution, but it does not necessarily answer why, for example,given the universality of the right to be educated, that education isnot under federal jurisdiction? I ask this question not historically –for which there are many reasons – but philosophically. My


philosophical interests concern the distinctive and identifiablefeatures of Catholic education that warrants believers of this faithtradition to claim the right – whether with the aid of public fundingor not – to educate in a Catholic manner. I realize that the discussionabout public funding is integrally woven into the fabric of CanadianCatholic education, but for the purposes of brevity and thecomplexity of the issue I must leave that matter aside for thepresent.

It has been said that Catholic education is “crowned by atheology of education.” Furthermore,

Contemporary Catholic education has come to rely on theologywithout much reflection on the various levels of knowledgewhich enables such a coronation. This reliance on theology canonly be secured through an integral philosophy which lays thefoundation for knowledge of the deepest realities of the humanperson, the world, and God. Theology assumes this foundation;it cannot construct it. (D’Souza, 1996, p. 5)

The neo-scholastic revival of philosophy – associated with namessuch as Etienne Gilson and Jacques Maritain – sought to establishthe relationship of philosophy to theology and to identify thedifficulties encountered by theology devoid of a philosophicalfoundation.

Canadian Catholic education has increasingly defined itsdistinctiveness through theology and particularly through religiouseducation (D’Souza, 2001, p. 12). This certainly seems to be animportant particularity of Canadian Catholic education. Canadianshave come to recognize the importance of different religioustraditions. This has increasingly led to an acceptance of a politicalunity – founded in the Charter of Rights – but secured in a religiousdiversity. The theological distinctiveness of Catholic schools does notprovide obvious clues as to how one is to engage in dialogue withthose from other faiths about the place and unifying role of educationin a multi-faith society. Theological distinctiveness is what givesparticularity to all faiths; it is hardly peculiar to the Catholic faith.In the context of a multi-faith society, philosophical distinctiveness,that is metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, aesthetic, andontological distinctiveness, may be a better position from which thedialogue could begin. It has been said that when Christian theologyflees from philosophy it has nothing to fall back upon but theenlightenment philosophy that haunts our culture with its variousdichotomies (Moran, 1986, p. 431). The postmodern debate about the


role and purpose of philosophy, especially historical and culturalparticularities and the development of individual subjectivity, couldbe another avenue for this philosophical dialogue.

Some Reflections on the Literature on Canadian Catholic Education

Kenneth Westhues (1976) has been a strong Canadian voice inasking critical philosophical questions about the nature of CanadianCatholic education. In another paper, “Catholic Separate Schools: AnAmbiguous Legacy,” (1985) he makes some chilling predictions,particularly as they were made about a decade before the actual turnof events in the provinces named above:

But powerful, too are the forces of centralization in our economyand culture. Hence Catholic schools in these as in these laterprovinces, as also in Quebec and Newfoundland, are likely toassume an increasingly secular character, and to becomeprogressively less distinguishable from other schools. There willbe religion classes and occasional Catholic liturgies, butotherwise the knowledge of values represented will be part ofthe Canadian mainstream. Even now, for instance, it is hard tofind much difference in board-faculty relations between theseparate and public systems. Issues of conflict are fairlysimilar, and so are the tactics of bargaining. (p. 60)

In his response to Westhues, Gallagher (1985, p. 7) strives to developsome universal principles of Catholic education, particularly in theareas of social and personal ethics leading to a transformation ofpersons and society. Gallagher hopes that his reflections will evolveinto a “modest contribution towards a philosophical theology ofCatholic education.” In this, Gallagher is in keeping with thetradition of Canadian Catholic education’s strong dependence upontheology and religious education. Philosophically this is a concernbecause Gallagher does not show how he moves from a philosophy ofeducation to a philosophical theology of education, if in fact he hasmoved to this position. The distinctions between philosophy andtheology must be maintained before affirming their intrinsicrelationship. Gilson (1962) confirms this with familiar precision:

Philosophy belongs in the temporal order. Like science and artit is naturally ‘of the world.’ As such, it is foreign to religiousfaith and in practice ignores it. This is indeed what makes itscollaboration so precious every time theology can obtain it. If wewant to show that the agreement between religious faith and


natural reason is spontaneous, the voice of reason needssometimes to be heard alone. Without nature, there can be nograce. (pp. 111-112)

Another Canadian author, Katherine Macdonald (1989), pays specialattention to education in a “multi-religious society.” She writes aboutthe development of a higher level of consciousness in such a societyand encourages Canadians to move to levels of acceptance andunderstanding that are well above the minimum level of tolerance ina multicultural society. Macdonald provides a useful theologicalframework for Canadian Catholic education, but it is precisely that,a theological framework. It is clear that it is not her intention toreflect upon the philosophical distinctiveness of such an educationalsystem. In light of her reflections: should Canadian education beunited by common philosophical principles or should it be separatedaccording to religious identities?

The documents on Catholic education stress the relationshipbetween Catholic education and evangelization, however, it is arelationship and not the sole means of identifying and distinguishingsuch an education. Education and evangelization in the Catholictradition are not interchangeable, though they are related; each havetheir specific methods and goals. Since the close of the SecondVatican Council (1962-1965) – that decisive moment in contemporaryCatholic experience – evangelization appears to have become thedefining feature of Catholic education. Mulligan (1990, 1994) writesabout the role of evangelization in Catholic high schools. This themehas become all the more important today when Catholic leaders andeducators agree that evangelization – announcing the Christianmessage – must be distinguished from catechesis – themethodological presentation of this message to children, adolescents,and adults. The complexity of today’s cultural situation has madeCatholics realize that some that were evangelized from infancy werenever fully catechized, and others who were catechized neverinternalized the Christian message and need to be re-evangelized.Nonetheless, once again this is a theological issue, though it mayfind a sympathetic audience with other Christian and non-Christiantraditions in Canada who also strive to remain faithful to theirreligious traditions amidst rapid cultural changes and a growingskepticism of institutional religions. Mulligan’s more recent booktackles other pressing issues of Canadian Catholic education, butthey are approached – and this is no criticism – theologically, and, byand large, through an Ontario focus. He says, for example: “Indeed,


a Catholic school is in big trouble when folks can detect nodiscernable gospel bias in the education it offers” (Mulligan, 1999, p.94). One can hardly disagree with Mulligan’s sentiments and alsosupport Catholic schools. The difficulty is to know how the gospelinfluences the entire enterprise of Catholic education. Does itinfluence it intrinsically by virtue of knowledge, knowing, andhierarchies of truths? Or does it influence it extrinsically by virtueof school policies, community, fellowship, caring, justice, and so on?It must do both. There is no doubt that Canadian Catholic schools dovery well with these extrinsic influences and in being able to identifythem. It appears, however, to be substantially weaker in identifyingthe intrinsic influences.

In writing about Canadian Catholic education for the thirdmillennium, Murphy (1991) situates it in the context of publicfunding, the new millennium as a sacred time, Catholic theologicalculture, social justice, trustees and professional educators as leaders,education and one’s spiritual tradition, and so forth These areimportant confessional issues, but by themselves they do not assistin the identification of the more universal principles of Catholiceducation. Such identification may help the dialogue with those fromother faith traditions that share in a concern for the freedom to offera religiously distinct education with the support of public funding.

A book that shows the particular context of Canadian Catholiceducation is Catholic Education: Transforming Our World: ACanadian Perspective (Higgins, McGowan, Murphy, & Trafford,1991) made up of papers by Canadian Catholic educators. Its tableof contents lists topics that are of importance not just for Catholiceducation. Social justice, the role of parents, adult education,educational leadership are surely areas of concern for believers of alltraditions as they too strive to remain faithful to their religiousbeliefs.

Some mention should be made of literature that attempts todevelop a philosophical approach to Canadian Catholic education.The Philosophy of Catholic Education offers a wide variety of papersranging from John Henry Newman’s thoughts on education to issuesof social justice (DiGiovanni, 1992). It seems that the contributorswere all grappling with the concept of a philosophy of Catholiceducation. Is the word philosophy to be applied loosely, as is oftenthe case today, as, in the philosophy of cooking, or is philosophy inthe context of Catholic education to be defined more precisely? The


papers in one way or another show signs of this struggle, especiallyas each author works from a particular understanding of what aCatholic philosophy of education means and looks like. The title ofthe book could hardly be surprising to its contributors seeing that itwas the title of the conference that led to the publication of thesepapers. Two papers attempt to engage those particularlyphilosophical questions amidst an otherwise theological terrain.“Bernard Lonergan and the Catholic Teacher,” is one such paper thatdevelops this Canadian philosopher’s view of the unrestricted desireto know and its implications in developing a wider understanding ofthe curriculum, particularly as the horizons of knowledge continuesto expand. For its part, “A Contemporary Philosophy of CatholicEducation” rightly stresses the contextual role of a Catholicphilosophy of education. (DiGiovanni, 1992, pp. 78 & 90)

“What Makes Catholic Education Catholic?” focuses upon themore universal features of Canadian Catholic education and reflectsupon issues such as reason, the relationship between learner andexperience, the forces of postmodernism and pluralism. The strengthof this paper is that it does attempt to relate the particularity ofCanadian Catholic education to the wider Canadian context(Trafford, 1993, p. 34). It is obvious that the author is morecomfortable with a theology or a spirituality of education, but he doesmake important inroads in discussing some philosophical issues. Hesays, for example, “If the knowledge, attitude, or skills that are to belearned have nothing to do with the experience of the learner, thenthey are in reality, insignificant” (1993, p. 43). Certainly experienceis central to the task of teaching and learning. One is reminded ofDewey’s work, Experience and Education, “The belief that allgenuine education comes about through experience does not meanthat all experiences are genuinely or equally educational. Experienceand education cannot be directly equated to each other” (1938, p. 25).Most educators would heartily agree with the first part of Dewey’sconviction. They may be hard pressed, however, in articulating whythe second part of his conviction is equally important. Therelationship of experience and education has become a popularpedagogical theme, but it is hardly particular to our age. Maritain(1943) was keenly aware of the relationship between experience andeducation: “education and teaching must start with experience, butin order to complete themselves with reason” (p. 46). He maintains:

Education must inspire eagerness both for experience and forreason, teach reason to base itself on facts and experience to


realize itself in rational knowledge, grounded on principles,looking at the raisons d’être, causes and ends, and graspingreality in terms of how and why. (pp. 46-47)

Another paper: “Turning Opportunities Into Challenges: Leadershipin Catholic Education,” elaborates upon denominational schools andpublic funding for students from other faith traditions. The authorsituates the issue in the context of rights and the emergence of apluralist and multicultural society (Vandezande, 1997).

Some Subsequent ReflectionsIn the last 40 or so years, the vast number of Catholic intellectualshave moved away from Scholasticism, particularly the neo-Scholasticmovement of the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries (McCool,1994). Thomism was the intellectual schema for the formation ofCatholic clergy as well as for the wider enterprise of Catholiceducation. There was, however, with the close of the Second VaticanCouncil, a “general revolt against authority,” which led “over 10 or15 years [to] a sudden and rather precipitous decline … in theprestige and predominance of Thomism among Catholic circles inboth philosophy and theology” (Clarke, 1990, p. 124). The order andunity of Thomism was increasingly replaced with new interests inphilosophy, particularly phenomenology, and existentialist andpersonalist philosophies (p. 125) There were moves in theologycalling for new ways of looking at the world, which includedecumenical dimensions, a dialogue with the social sciences,theologies of liberation, a renewed emphasis on scripture, and ethicsand morality in a rapidly changing technological society. It has beensaid that the rise of the “new theology” led to the end of Thomism asa single organized movement (McCool, 1989, p. 225). The closing ofthis intellectual period continues to be of concern in some circles(McCool, 1990). Note should be made in passing of Pope John PaulII’s encyclical: Fides et Ratio, promulgated on the 14th of September,1998, in which he writes about the relationship between faith andreason, particularly the relationship between philosophy andtheology.

Despite the diversity of Catholic intellectual thought duringthese 40 years, this period has not been marked by anything close toa rejuvenation in the field of the Catholic philosophy of education, infact it seems to have come to a grinding halt. There has been aCatholic philosophical discussion on education by theologians andphilosophers like Karl Rahner, Bernard Lonergan, David Tracy,


Paulo Freire, and Charles Taylor. For example, Lonergan (1993) andFreire (1995) have written on topics in education from a Catholicperspective. All in all, however, there does not seem to be the kindof flourishing of scholarship in Catholic philosophy of education asthere was in the 20 years before the close of the Second VaticanCouncil. Redden and Ryan’s A Catholic Philosophy of Education(1949), Maritain’s Education at the Crossroads (1943), Fitzpatrick’sPhilosophy of Education (1953), and Philosophy and the Integrationof Contemporary Catholic Education (McLean, 1962), are only someexamples of the attention devoted to a Catholic philosophy ofeducation prior to the Second Vatican Council. Even Gulley’s TheEducational Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas (1964) was publishedwhile the Vatican Council was still in session. I mention this timeframe not for nostalgic reasons but to show that there was, in theearly and mid-part of the 20th century, an active scholarshipdeveloping a Catholic philosophy of education particular to its timeand place. While I am not reducing such a philosophy of education toa neo-Thomistic model, I do believe that the breadth of Thomism andneo-Thomism can make an important contribution today.

A word about my use of the term “Catholic philosophy ofeducation.” The discipline of philosophy of education deals with thephilosophical and foundational questions of pedagogy and theoriesof education. It is distinguished from a history of education, sociologyof education, religious education, and so forth, though relationshipswith these fields are acknowledged. Consequently, a Catholicphilosophy of education, as I use the term, is not the same as anotherphrase that is often used in Canadian Catholic educational circles:“philosophy of Catholic education.” In this latter context, philosophyis used more loosely and embraces pedagogy, spirituality, history,political arrangements, statistics, and so forth I use the termCatholic philosophy of education in the same way as I use the termphilosophy of education, where in the former usage the addition ofthe word “Catholic” refers to the specific philosophical principles thathave been developed according to the Catholic intellectual tradition.I believe that it is the Catholic philosophy of education that can bestcommunicate the pedagogical distinctiveness of Catholic education. Subsequent to the Second Vatican Council, the documents fromThe Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education continue to presumea certain universal Catholic philosophical position. Thecorresponding absence of such a unified philosophical position withCatholic schools and universities simply results in the absence of a


much-needed lens from which these documents could be read anddiscerned. The absence did not arise from an official position of theRoman Catholic Church, in fact quite the contrary. Even “TheDeclaration on Christian Education” one of the 16 documentspromulgated by the Second Vatican Council, though a weakdocument in itself, makes express mention of the method andtradition of St. Thomas Aquinas, and it does so in the context of thecurriculum. The document states that the independence ofdisciplines and their search for truth must never be compromised(Flannery, 1996, p. 585). This autonomy, however, is neverunderstood in absolute terms for it would prevent the curriculumfrom ensuring a harmony with the enterprise of knowledge andlearning and in the search for truth. Such an absolutist position alsoprevents a philosophical interconnection between the subjects of thecurriculum. This stress upon the unity and diversity of thecurriculum in Catholic education, which lies at the heart of thisdocument, should be one of the most important philosophicalprinciples of Catholic education.

The absence of a unifying philosophical system in the analysis ofCatholic education is to be lamented, but it is not a lament inhistorical or intellectual isolation. There are many reasons why sucha unified system has been openly questioned and silently rejected.Indeed, the very complexity of knowledge and learning todaycompounded by postmodernism, deconstructionism, and culturaltheories have made the defense of grand theories and intellectuallyunified systems very difficult. For its part, neo-Thomism was notadvocating a nostalgic return to a time of intellectual bliss. Rather,it was an invitation for the revival of a Thomism tailored tocontemporary needs (Maritain, 1973, p. 139). There is no doubt thatthe accepted pluralism and diversity of today makes the unifyingtask of philosophy difficult. Buckley (1998, pp. 151-153) pursues thisunifying theme of philosophy in light of contemporary theories ofknowledge and the egalitarianism of the curriculum.

The absence of a unifying Catholic philosophy of education is ofconcern for a number of reasons. First, as has been said, there wasa great interest in this discipline in the 20th century and a vacuumcreated as this interest faded. Philosophical and theological theoriesdid change, and sometimes radically, but the difficulty that arosefrom an absence of a unified Catholic philosophy of education wasnever really dealt with. For its part, Rome continues to publishdocuments that appear to presuppose the existence and the


acceptance of a unified philosophy, (for example, when they speak ofthe human person) one that is attested to and supported by theuniversal enterprise of Catholic education. From the perspective ofa methodology and framework, neo-Thomism provided a scaffoldingfor Catholic intellectual discourse and for a unity of thought. Itsdismantling led to questions and concerns that contemporaryintellectual thought may not be either prepared or interested toanswer.

Second, the absence of a unified Catholic philosophy of educationis also noticeable in light of the interest in the field of education,particularly over the last 25 years. In North America graduateschools of education, devoted to the theory and practice of education,sprang up and grew in importance and diversity. The divisions anddepartments of graduate schools of education showed evidence thata hierarchy of intellectual knowledge and principles did not assist inanswering the complexity of educational questions. Bloom’s (1987)The Closing of the American Mind led to a flurry of literature onhigher education, ranging from the nature of the liberal arts to thedemise of education itself. The literature shows that, by and large,higher education is based upon secularist principles.

Third, the absence of a Catholic philosophy of education is alsonoticeable by an examination of the educational task itself.Education, it was said follows “the flux and reflux of educationalcurrents. It is not an autonomous science, but dependent uponphilosophy” (Maritain, 1962, pp. 39-40). This is a principle thatshould be at the heart of a Catholic philosophy of education. Does theabsence of such a philosophy of education simply mean the absenceof philosophical agreement thus preventing the emergence of such adiscipline? Or, does it mean that there is doubt whether educationand teaching are philosophical tasks, and governed primarily,though not exclusively, by a philosophy of education? The study ofeducation has benefitted from the scholarship of the social sciencesand by the broad interest in knowledge and learning, particularly theplace of experience. The depth and diversity of this dialogue hasenriched this study, but the question remains: is education primarilya philosophical activity? This question is particularly important forCatholic education in light of the traditional relationship betweenphilosophy and theology. It was said that the task of institutionaleducation was to educate and enlighten the intellect, and throughthis lead to a corresponding, and equally important, enlightenmentof the will. The distinctions between the intellectual and moral life


are not absolute; absolutist distinctions lead to the “misconceptionsof intellectualism and voluntarism” (Maritain, 1943, pp. 18-22).Institutional education focuses upon the enlightenment the intellect,which in turn leads to a formation of the will. Furthermore, Catholiceducation made this claim because it was based upon thecorresponding knowledge that the school was one of the three agentsof an integral education; parents and the Church being the othertwo. This triumvirate prevented institutional education, with itsconcentration upon the intellect, from becoming dualistic. Perhapsthe many difficulties of today that surround the teaching authorityboth of parents and the Church may indicate why there seems to bean increasing unwillingness and inability of Catholic schools toembrace its primarily intellectual mandate. The failure to implementthis mandate only leads to a confusion of the purpose and end ofeducation. Why are students educated in common? Why should theliberation and the enlightenment of the intellect be of interest toCatholics? How is knowledge and learning a truly spiritual activity,but an activity understood philosophically? How can such a spiritualunderstanding of knowledge and learning provide unity for a diverseconfessional population while respecting individual religioustraditions? Is there a natural hierarchy, and if so, is it necessarilysnobbish and elitist? Is there a purpose to education beyond literacyand technical capability? Does education, learning, and knowledgetend towards an end; does it possess a theology? These are some ofthe questions that should be at the heart of a Catholic philosophy ofeducation. What leads Catholic educators to believe that thesequestions are not of equal importance in our time or that they can beanswered by anything short of a coherent and unified philosophy ofeducation?

Fourth, the absence of a unified philosophical system leads to animbalance in the dialogue between faith and culture, a prominenttheme in contemporary Catholic theology and teaching. In theacademy and in the world at large faith’s ambassador has beentheology; the corresponding representative for culture should bephilosophy. This is because, first traditionally philosophy was seento be the unifying discipline for all of knowledge and learning.Second, today more so than ever culture is multi-layered. Theprevious strict distinctions between high and low culture have beenchallenged in favour of an expansive and porous culture thatincludes more than artistic heritage and literary expressions.Cultural analysis needs a focusing discipline in order to dialogue


with faith, and no doubt some would challenge such a unifying viewof culture. Taylor (1999, pp. 14-15) has developed this theme of unityand diversity in the quest for a Catholic modernity. Reading thesigns of the times is something that Catholic education must excelat in order to communicate the liberation and freedom that comesfrom the enlightenment of the intellect. Having presupposedtheological distinctiveness, what other foundation may Catholiceducators rely upon in order that they may read the signs of thetimes? Certainly the dialogue between faith and culture must involvethe social sciences, the other sciences, and the ever-widening field oftechnology and communications. It is precisely the width anddiversity of human knowing that requires some filter through whichknowing and knowledge can be analyzed and commented upon.

Finally, the absence of a unifying Catholic philosophy ofeducation leads to difficulties in determining the role of knowledgeand learning itself. What is the purpose of the curriculum, that is,are subjects included because of social preconceptions and wants, orare they included because of the very nature of the mind and theintellect? What is our response to the trivium and the quadrivium ofold? The mind works hierarchically; subjects in the curriculum riseup divesting themselves of matter, for example in mathematics orphysics, or as in culture where the transcendentals of truth,goodness, and beauty are devoid of matter, per se, but are vital to thelife of any culture. This stress on intellectual knowledge and theintellect must be understood in a wider context: the integraleducation of the student as a person. Institutional education,Catholic or not, has important social, political, ethical and moraldimensions. Here lies the basis of the school as community.Furthermore, respect, care for others, justice and equality, religiousfreedom, and ecology, are only some of the examples that must bepart of institutional education. Students cannot be forced to committhemselves to these issues. Rather, educators must aim to enlightenthe minds of their students so that they will make free choices andthus manifest themselves in actions that reveal their commitment.

ConclusionI have reflected why there is a need for a Catholic philosophy ofeducation, particularly in the context of pluralist and multiculturalCanada. I have said, while affirming the importance of its theologicaldistinctiveness, that philosophical principles are required which can


show forth the pedagogical and epistemological distinctiveness ofCatholic education. Education cannot function without a formal andarticulated pedagogy and epistemology, and Catholic educationneeds to be able to outline its own particular approach in these twoareas. In this regard, the education of Catholic teachers is anotherarea of concern. What does the preparation of Catholic teachersinvolve? Can one or two courses in Catholic theology – offered insome faculties of education and usually rudimentary in nature – besufficient for their preparation?

I have also raised some issues that could contribute toward aunified philosophy of education. Catholic education must take intoaccount, for example, the nature of the curriculum, the relationshipbetween faith and reason, the importance of community andfellowship in learning, the education of the will and moral education,issues of social and personal justice. However, the primary purposeof institutional education is to enlighten the intellect, and throughsuch enlightenment it proceeds with the integral education of thestudent as a person. The pedagogical principles of the Catholic schoolmust take into account the needs of students growing towards theirpersonhood, the transforming power of the intellect, the unity ofknowledge and truth, the education of the will – moral education –and religious commitment, learning and knowing as integralformation.

These requirements of Catholic education are interrelated andrequire the benefit of analysis to achieve order and unity. That is atask for another time. Rather, I have attempted to show the need fora Catholic philosophy of education, and for two reasons: onecontemporary and the other historic. The contemporary reason hasto do with the viability and distinctiveness of Catholic education ina pluralist, multicultural, and multi-faith society. The historic reasondeals with the traditional relationship and dependence of philosophyand theology. Comment has also been made about the absence of aphilosophical position adhered to by Catholic intellectuals andeducators. Such a vacuum seems to have created a sense ofintellectual imbalance in Catholic education. Teaching, learning, andeducation, activities primarily governed by philosophy, are nowbereft of a unifying philosophical world-view. This is the effectivechallenge facing Catholic education in Canada. Is there arelationship between Catholic education and a Catholic philosophyof education? Second, does such an educational system believe thateducation, teaching, and learning are primarily philosophical


activities with important theological implications? Third, can suchan educational system continue to manifest its distinctivenessalmost entirely theologically, with little or no reference to its distinctphilosophical or pedagogical position? In adopting such a position,could Canadian Catholic education take the lead by its inherentrespect for religious diversity, and implement religious instructionaccording to this diversity, and thus become a source of civic andhumanistic unity for a religiously diverse citizenry? These are onlysome of the wider philosophical questions for Canadian Catholiceducation whose answers are essential for its survival.

Author’s Address:

Faculty of TheologyUniversity of St. Michael’s College81 St. Mary StreetToronto, OntarioCANADA M5S 1J4EMAIL: [email protected]

REFERENCESBloom, A. (1987). The closing of the American mind. New York: Simon

& Schuster.Buckley, M.(1998). The Catholic university as promise and project:

Reflections in a Jesuit idiom. Washington, DC: GeorgetownUniversity Press.

Clarke, W. (1990). Thomism and contemporary philosophical pluralism.The Modern Schoolma, 67(2), 123-139.

Congregation for Catholic Education. (1977). The Catholic school. Rome:The Congregation for Catholic Education.

Congregation for Catholic Education. (1988). The religious dimension ofeducation in a Catholic school: Guidelines for reflection andrenewal. Rome: The Congregation for Catholic Education.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: MacmillanPublishing Company.

DiGiovani, C. (Ed). (1992). The philosophy of Catholic education.Ottawa, ON: Novalis.

D’Souza, M. (1996). The preparation of teachers for Roman Catholicschools: Some philosophical first principles. Paideusis: Journal ofthe Canadian Philosophy of Education Society, 9(2), 5-19.


D’Souza, M. (2001). Experience, subjectivity, and Christian religiouseducation: Canadian Catholic education in the 21st century TheJournal of Educational Administration and Foundations, 15(2), 11-25.

Fitzpatrick, E. (1953). Philosophy of education. Milwaukee, WI: TheBruce Publishing Company.

Flannery, A. (Ed.). (1996). The basic sixteen documents: Vatican CouncilII: Constitutions, decrees, declarations. Northport, NY: CostelloPublishing Company.

Freire, P. (1995). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. Gallagher, P. (1985). Taking issue with Ken Westhues’ Catholic

separate schools: An ambiguous legacy. Grail, 1(2), 6-11.Gilson, E. (1962) The philosopher and theology (C. Gilson, Trans). New

York: Random House.Gulley, A. (1964). The educational philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas.

New York: Pageant Press.Higgins, M., McGowan, B., Murphy, D., & Trafford, L. (Eds.). (1991).

Catholic education: Transforming our world: A Canadianperspective. Ottawa, ON:Novalis.

Landy, K. (2000, Sept. 7). End the bias against religious schools [Openletter to Janet Ecker Ontario Minister of Education]. The Globe andMail, p. A19.

Lonergan, B. (1993). Collected works of Bernard Lonergan: Topics ineducation (R. Doran & F. Crowe, Eds.). Toronto, ON: University ofToronto Press.

MacDonald, K. (1989). Education in a multi-religious society. Grail,5(2), 19-29.

Maritain, J. (1943). Education at the crossroads. New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity Press.

Maritain, J. (1962). The education of man: The educational philosophyof Jacques Maritain (Eds. D. Gallagher & I. Gallagher). Westport,CT: Greenwood Press Publishers.

Maritain, J. (1973). Integral humanism: Temporal and spiritualproblems of a new Christendom. (J.W. Evans, Trans.). Notre Dame,IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Matthews, C. (Ed.). (1977). Catholic schools in Canada. Toronto, ON:Canadian Catholic Trustees Association.

McCool. G. (1989). From unity to pluralism: The internal evolution ofThomism. New York: Fordham University.

McCool, G. (1990). Is Thomas’ way of philosophizing still viable today?Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association, 64,1-13.

McCool, G. (1994). The Neo-Thomists. Milwaukee, WI: MarquetteUniversity Press.


McLean, G. (Ed.). (1962). Philosophy and the integration ofcontemporary Catholic education. Washington: The CatholicUniversity of America Press.

Moran, G. (1986). Interest in philosophy: Three themes for religiouseducation. Religious Education, 81(3), 424-445.

Mulligan, J. (1990). Evangelization and the Catholic high school: Anagenda for the 1990’s. Ottawa, ON: Novalis.

Mulligan, J.(1994). Formation for evangelization: Reflections of aCatholic educator. Ottawa, ON: Novalis.

Mulligan, J. (1999). Catholic education: The future is now. Foreword byClare Fitzgerald. Ottawa, ON: Canada: Novalis.

Murphy, D. (1991). Catholic education: Toward the third millennium.Grail, 8(2),68-91.

O’Brien, D. (1994). From the heart of the American church: Catholichigher education and American culture. Maryknoll, NY: OrbisBooks.

Ontario Ministry of Education. (1999, November 5). Open statementfrom the Hon. Janet Ecker, Minister of Education (News Release).Toronto, ON: The Ministry of Education.

Redden, J. & Ryan, F. (1949). A Catholic philosophy of education.Milwaukee, WI: The Bruce Publishing Company.

Taylor, C. (1999). A Catholic modernity? With responses by William R.Shea, Rosemary Lulin Haighton,George Narsden, and Jean BethkeElshtain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Trafford, L. (1993). What makes education Catholic? Grail, 9(4), 27-49.Vandezande, G. (1997). Turning challenges into opportunities:

Leadership in Catholic education. Grail, 13(3), 51-73.Westhues, K. (1976). Public vs. sectarian legitimation: The separate

schools of the Catholic Church. Canadian Review of Sociology andAnthropology, 13, 137-151.

some reflections on contemporary canadian catholic education

Documents